dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Healthcare Auditing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 22, 2023 In Re: 28949083 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a nurse auditor, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as an advanced degree professional, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement attached to this classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the framework outlined in Matter of Dhanasar, 
26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner presents a brief but does not add new evidence or arguments to confront the 
reasoning the Director already provided. In the request for evidence (RFE) and the decision, the 
Director addressed many of the Petitioner 's assertions regarding the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor. The Director discussed multiple pieces of evidence individually and quoted 
material in the record in several instances. The Director further identified numerous deficiencies in 
the evidence and explained specifically why the evidence did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility 
under the Dhanasar framework. 
We adopt and affirm the Director 's analysis and decision regarding the first Dhanasar prong. See 
Matter of Burbano, 20 l&N Dec. 872,874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. 
Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally 
accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st 
Cir. 1996) Uoining eight circuit courts in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the 
decision below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). Below we provide 
individualized consideration to the petition and to many of the Petitioner's appellate claims. Although 
the Director already addressed some of these issues, we provide additional context for them. 
However, before discussing the Petitioner's appellate claims, we must first discuss the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the EB-2 classification. Although the Director determined she established eligibility as 
an advanced degree professional, neither the RFE nor the decision contained any analysis of the issue. 
The evidence establishes that she earned the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree; however, 
we question the accuracy and credibility of the evidence demonstrating her experience. According to 
the documents provided in the initial filin and in the RFE res onse, the Petitioner appears to have 
simultaneo
1
sly wo ked as a nurse at as a ·unior nurse 
auditor for 1and running her own business,,__--------------.------.-----' 
Further, during the time in which she claims to have audited other companies, ych as ,___ _.and
I lthe record is unclear as to whether the Petitioner worked for 1 as their employee 
or for her own business with I I as the client. For instance. a colleague wrote in a 
recommendation letter that the Petitioner's business contracted with I I while Counsel's 
statements and her government employment record suggest the Petitioner worked for I I as an 
employee. The dates of her work with I lalso appear to be inconsistent. The Petitioner must 
resolve these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead 
us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested 
immigration benefit. Id. As various work history documents, recommendation letters, as well as the 
Petitioner's and Counsel's statements appear to conflict with each other, we question the accuracy of 
the Petitioner's claimed work history overall. Accordingly, we conclude the record is insufficient to 
establish the Petitioner has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director conflated the Petitioner's employment with her proposed 
endeavor and that the ''endeavor is plainly different from the proposed employment the petitioner 
seeks to hold in furtherance of the endeavor." The Petitioner reiterates on appeal that her employment 
is the vehicle to achieve the proposed endeavor. While we recognize the distinction, we conclude that 
employment held in furtherance of the proposed endeavor, while not required for national interest 
waiver eligibility, necessarily informs the level of impact the proposed endeavor may have and 
therefore the broader implications of the endeavor. For instance, the extent to which the Petitioner 
can carry out her proposed endeavor may differ depending on whether the Petitioner provides home 
health services as an independent contractor, runs her own healthcare auditing business, or works as 
an auditor within an established hospital system. Even if we agree that the Director improperly 
conflated the Petitioner's employment with her endeavor, this does not establish how doing so would 
"go beyond hannless enor." In other words, the Petitioner has not explained how an "inappropriate 
conflation" diminishes the Director's analysis of the endeavor's national importance. 
The Petitioner emphasizes her past achievements as evidence to suggest that she will create a similar 
impact in carrying out the proposed endeavor. However, the record does not reflect that the Petitioner 
has contributed to her field in a manner commensurate with national importance. As the Director 
noted, the Petitioner's accomplishments relate to the results she achieved on specific projects or for 
specific employers/clients but are not indicative of broader implications to the field. The few 
recommendation letters indicating the Petitioner's work extended beyond her individual employers do 
not discuss the Petitioner's impact in specific tenns. For instance, the letters' authors do not provide 
specific names of other hospitals that adopted her methods or objective documentary evidence to 
corroborate the claimed cost savings and quality improvement percentages. Generalized conclusory 
statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. 
2 
v. US.Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory 
assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). The submission of reference letters supporting the 
petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters to 
determine whether they support the petitioner's eligibility. Id. See also Matter of V-K-, 24 l&N Dec. 
500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 
The Petitioner asserts the Director abused their discretion in failing to address all evidence, citing 
Buletini v. INS, 850 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994) in support. The court in Buletini, however, did 
not reject the concept of examining the quality of the evidence presented to determine whether it 
establishes a petitioner's eligibility, nor does the Buletini decision suggest that USCIS abuses its 
discretion if it does not provide individualized analysis for each piece of evidence. When USCIS 
provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be 
required to specifically address each claim the Petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address 
every piece of evidence the petitioner presents. Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 
2013) (citing Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir.1992); see also Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Atty. 
Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); Casalena v. U.S. INS, 984 F.2d 105, 107 (4th Cir. 1993). 
We conclude the record reflects the Director's consideration of all evidence in the totality even though 
the Director did not address each piece of evidence individually. 
The Petitioner contends the Director ignored evidence, such as the JAMA report, evidence of a U.S. 
nursing shortage, and the Biden administration's National Health Service Corps funding. As the 
Director's decision references these exact pieces of evidence, we do not find support for the 
Petitioner's contention. Additionally, the Petitioner contends that her initial filing and RFE response 
contained ample "testimonial and objective documentary evidence to establish the national importance 
of the proposed endeavor from both an economic and social welfare standpoint." However, the 
Petitioner does not specifically identify any evidence the Director ignored regarding the economic and 
social welfare impact of the proposed endeavor. The objective evidence in the record, such as the 
industry articles and reports, does not reference the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. Here, the 
Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of the industry and profession, which the articles and 
reports demonstrate, as sufficient to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor. 
As the Director fully explained, the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. We adopt and affirm the Director's analysis and decision regarding the first 
Dhanasar prong and conclude the Petitioner has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits 
a national interest waiver. 1 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 
24, 25 (1976) (stating that "courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is 
unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 {BIA 2015) (declining to 
reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
3